tiebreak drama in Kramnik-Radjabov match. 4 rapid games = 4 draws.
Then 2 game blitz matches.
radjabov wins first blitz game and second looks a sure draw until 15 sec's left on the clock for both players the clock stalls! play is paused for 13 min's and when it is resumed Kramnik manages to win the game because radjabov blunders. All even.
New 2 game blitz match.
Kramnik wins first game and in second game Radjabov resigns when perpetual is inevitable. draw or loss is same thing.
Kramnik was so close to losing and yet he proceeds to second round.
What a day. I can only imagine how much stress the players were under.
The arbiters too were feeling the pressure before the start of the play-offs.
I found myself checking that I could reset a DGT XL, even though I have done
it hundreds of times before.
A quick meeting before play and it was agreed that the penalty for starting
an opponent’s clock before replacing a displaced piece would be one minute.
A third offence would result in the loss of the game.
The rules already stated that a third incorrect claim of a draw would result
in a loss also.
The Rules also stated that the arbiters should record the moves and this
was to be available to the players to enable draw claims.
I was allocated the Aronian-Grischuk game with Franca Dapiran doing
Kramnik-Radjabov and Chief Arbiter Ignatius Leong ‘floating’.
As things transpired, I got the easy option.
Before the start of play a technician came up to us to inform us that
the Kramnik-Radjabov clock was not showing up with the electronic display.
This often happens when the batteries are weak but not so weak as to give a
warning sign. The clock was replaced.
The Rapidplay session duly commenced at 3pm local time.
After some discussion it was agreed that we would give 15 minutes between
games but would not wait to start both simultaneously as that could cause
a large delay and there was anyway the prospect of a very long day
– 4 Rapidplay, 10 Blitz and an Armageddon.
My first game lasted longer than the other so my second started 10 minutes
after the K-R one. However, they finished games 2, 3 and 4 whilst
I was still on game three.
It was decided to start my game 4 at the same time as the Blitz game
of the other competitors.
As I am watching this game I hear a bleep from the other clock as
you do when it is being reset. I looked round to see both players indicating
the clock which was showing 00 and the other two arbiters moving swiftly
towards the incident.
(Whilst we were close to the ‘action’ we were a bit further back than normally
would be the case when recording to allow more access for the film crews.)
It was immediately decided that the game should continue with a replacement
clock set at the times which could be found either from the footage taken or from
the display of the games.
Obviously, there was some disturbance though not excessive under the
circumstances. It was certainly enough for me to consider halting my game,
but not enough for me actually to do so.
There was a bit of a dispute with one player saying the game should be annulled
and the other wanting to play on. A slight delay followed whilst the Rules were
consulted to confirm that they did not cover the situation.
“They discuss the situation, while arbiter Alex McFarlane admonishes them to keep it down”
That is the caption underneath a picture on the Chessbase Website.
(Alex is on the far right holding up his hand to Kramnik telling him to keep the noise down.)
Eventually, everything was sorted and the games continued using a third clock.
I am not sure, but I believe part of the delay in restarting was to allow the players
to compose themselves.
As my match finished first I then had to escort one of the players to the press
interview and then for a doping test.
I returned from that in time to watch the last blitz game and then repeat the
doping performance with one of those players.
All in all a very busy day. One which I enjoyed but one that I hope will not be
repeated. I hate to think what the situation would have been like if we had had
three matches going to tiebreak.
Isn't the 'dope-testing' nonsense just a vanity exercise by FIDE so that it appears to be conforming with IOC regulations - even though the IOC will never admit chess to the Olympics, and has said so.
As for 4-game matches, blitz & kindred things, I agree - none of this has any place in the WC Candidates. But that's FIDE idiots again.
Deciding a match by a blitz game may appear unfair but I
suppose it's better than spinng a roulette wheel as they did to
settle the Smyslov - Hubner candidate match in 1983.
Smyslov refused to settle the match by blitz games but was
happy to let fate decided.
He was given the red numbers - Hubner the black.
The first spin came up a double 00. (green - no winner)
Don't tell me the ghosts of the past Masters did not have a hand in this.
They tried again, it came up red 3 and Smylov won the match.
The reason for having doping tests in chess has more to do with getting chess
into the Olympics than anything else.
With very few exceptions there are no drugs which will give benefits to chess
players without doing short to medium term severe damage.
There are two categories of test, in competition and out of competition.
The latter seems to apply to anyone who has not started a game within 24 hours
of the test time nor will play a game within the same period after.
By this definition even players who qualified for the next round can be tested
on Monday afternoon under the out of competition category.
Confused, I am.
Fortunately Dr Jana Bellin the chair of FIDE’s Medical Commission knows the
rules backwards.
The doping tests are arranged to cause minimum disruption.
For this reason it was agreed that anyone involved in play-offs would
not be tested on Sunday.
So for each of the four games we were given, by Jana, a list of 3 possible
outcomes depending on the result of the match.
We were also given a quota for each type of testing just to complicate things further.
This meant that the players to be tested and the category of test would be
dependent on the order of finishing.
Some of the players had recently been tested on a number of occasions
and this was also factored into the equation.
The first two games were drawn so there was to be no immediate action
on those players.
The other two games did result in three people being asked to give tests
under the two categories.
I had to stay with a GM who was to be tested during the press interview
which follows every game. There were also a huge number of autographs
to be signed.
Whilst not as popular as the players even I have been asked on a few
occasions to sign my name, though most of those have been on the restaurant receipts.
Following the interview I had to then escort him to the medical room where,
much to my relief, my duties ended.
I believe that the players then had 30 minutes to supply the necessary.
Originally posted by greenpawn34 With very few exceptions there are no drugs which will give benefits to chess
players without doing short to medium term severe damage.
What does short to medium term mean? I know of many people who took stimulants before exams and all live their life with no severe damage. There are many things that help combat mental fatigue, improve concentrations levels, etc.
There's a strong incentive to use them on important matches. If this is true, then this can easily generate a spiral of widespread use. What's so wrong with testing?
Originally posted by Palynka What does short to medium term mean? I know of many people who took stimulants before exams and all live their life with no severe damage. There are many things that help combat mental fatigue, improve concentrations levels, etc.
There's a strong incentive to use them on important matches. If this is true, then this can easily generate a spiral of widespread use. What's so wrong with testing?
exactly. for one, beta blockers seem like obvious and well known old school drugs to use for chess, to the extent that I'd be absolutely shocked if they haven't been widely used before tests. I think it's naive to think that chess players were somehow 'above' such things, especially when we see how widespread engine use is online. there are loads of people who WILL cheat, if they can get away with it. and many cheat even when it's obvious that they can't get away with it (which always amazes me).
and it's not like health risks or even fatalities have EVER kept people from using doping anyway...
Kramnik-Radjabov drama
10 May '11 19:07
Back to Top